Child-free flight zones: what do you think?

Can I sit in the child free bit while my kids sit in the normal bit? :)

Maryz - now that I would happily pay extra for!

So Air Asia will fly their planes with empty seats rather than allowing children in rows 1-7?

Given that childrens tickets are virtually full price, I very much doubt this will succeed if that happened even once.

And what about the drunk, snoring 'business man' in row 1? Will they roll him to the back with the feral animals children?

As for all the claims that people are "working" and flying for business, not for choice and can't be disturbed by crying children. Your self importance is staggering. Get a new job if you can't tolerate sharing what is essentially public transport with other people.

I'd have agreed with this a few years ago when kids paid half the adult price, but considering how much it costs to fly a 2 year old now, they can bugger off.... [grumpy]

If it's about money, actually the people with kids will have paid more for their seats so really they should call the shots.

Especially on a 'budget' airline where the single traveller may have only paid 37p and be able to pack their sarong, suntan lotion and novelty condoms into their free carry on baggage.

With such a bargainous flight they should put up and shut up.

The family with three kids have had to shell out for five full price tickets when over half of them aren't earning anything. Plus have to pay extra for hold luggage because they can't cram the clothes and the nappies and the nintendos and the sweets and the blankies and the books into a carry on bag the size of a pea.

Try.As.They.Might.

None of this would be neccessary if everyone had a bit of consideration for everyone else around them.

Maryz yy to alcohol free flights.
just we have alcohol free trains where I live think about the number of times I have seen people drinking alcohol in the train at 7.00am

One but that isn't a 'child zone' that's just where they can actually put the bassinet on. It has always been like this, even 30 years ago and no one was talking about 'child zone'.

And as you said, this is about little babies only (who are likely to sleep through it) not for toddlers and older children.
What the proposal is about is a zone where no children under 12yo can go. Not quite the same thing.

What I have seen is the airline trying to put families in the middle row so that 'everyone can be sat next to each other' rather than using the seats next to the window or the aisle (as they are, of course, much more in demand).
But it was never signposted as an area for children or families.

Terrible idea.

We are already intolerant enough of normal, human-life stuff as it is (old people, disabled people, people who don't speak English well enough or with the right accent, people who drive big cars, people who drive too slowly etc etc), this would be just another nail in the coffin of harmonious collective living.
More divisions and segregation should not be encouraged.

No man is an island. Divide and rule doesn't work.

If, however, this meant that I could leave my cretin of a child at home with its Dad and jet off on holiday myself, with the excuse that kids can't fly at all on my chosen flight, I think it'd be a great idea .

Trains have quiet zones - they don't ban kids AFAIK but I don't get in if DD is with me, don't see why people shouldn't have the same choice on flights. As others mentioned, it's upto the airlines to see if they can fill up flights with these restrictions. My DD can be quiet as a mouse and really well behaved. On other occasions, she can be a bit too full of beans. I hate getting dirty looks from others. Am all for it if airlines can make it work!

fine, as long as:

child-friendly flights are not more expensive/only available on certain routes/times.

it isn't (airline ) class restrictive - don't want children all relegated to back of cattle class, for eg.

there are other 'exclusive' zones - eg no drinking (alcohol) would cut out a lot of disruption/loud brayers.

It does annoy me when people rant about children on flights - mine have never been disruptive for more than 30 seconds (and even that is rare - happened once when dd2 was separated from me, and dd1 could hear her crying so also got upset. but then if the airline had sat us together as requested, and booked rather than shifting us about, that would never have happened anyway), but that doesn't stop them being eyeballed as soon as they set foot on a plane.

Labels they might have used up all the bulk head and the end row. Most of the airlines do it on a allocate-by-age basis. I didn't get a bassinet on one of the flights because they had 8 babies younger than my 18mo that time. I was allocated the last row next to the toilets. They are able to block the seat next to us though so we have our own row. It all depends on how full the planes are, and who is on it. The airlines don't want to annoy the other passengers either. But they do like to fully book it so they make more profit.

And I imagine that for people who want a 'No children Zone' actually, kerfuffle and noise = disruptive people

Babies are slightly different, but IME its not children on long haul flights that are a problem. Its children on short haul flights... which is an entirely different can of worms... and begs the question about why children are actually annoying on flights.

Long haul, the problem is more with adults who get drunk or don't fit in their seat and think, particularly because I'm small, that its ok to take up half of mine too (ironically usually businessmen types!).

Lets be honest about this, the reason they are doing this, isn't really to improve the experience of passengers, its so they can create another category of seating and charge (and probably more likely businesses rather than child free couples) more for the privilege.

Don't forget that you are more likely to die in the front rows in a plane crash, than further back, so first classes and child free seats aren't necessarily the best seats anyway!

The last long haul flight I took didn't have any though. I was sat next to woman with a little baby. Said baby was quiet for the whole 8 hours of the flight, either sleeping or bfing wo a few 'awake' moments.

LabelsGalore - I think it's more kerfuffle and noise than disruption. The majority of younger children whine, laugh loudly and get in and out their seat often on long flights, and babies cry.

Excellent idea - then even if I am without my children I can choose to sit with other people's children rather than the type of baby-boomer who would want to be in a child-free zone. I doubt however that they would want to pay any extra.

I have never been annoyed by a child on a flight but plenty of older men have been unpleasant to share cabin-space with and I can think of 2 men on 2 flights who made me cry. Give me the children any day of the week.

Labels long haul already have children zone. At least all the babies are together already.

I am wondering why some people automatically associate child = disruptive though....

Also are we talking about a 2 hour flight or a 12 hour flight there?

because tbh, in a 2 hour flight to another European country, it does feel over the top (Although I like the area for 'Intolerant People' rather than an area with 'No children' or even a 'Quiet Area').
For a 12 hours journey, a bigger plane etc... that is more understandable and easy to organize. After all, we use to have some 'smoking areas' in the planes too.

I actually think it's a good idea, I don't want my family to be seated around awful people tutting and shooting nasty looks, I would much rather be with other families. So yes, but for my benefit more than theirs!

There are already child free zones on [planes and have been for years

Its called FIRST CLASS - a lot of airlines only allow passengers over 12 in first class. so if you want a child free flight just pay the thousands of pounds for a first class ticket!